EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change Transitional points problem!!

Goodness Gracious, Dicky ... do you you think that I take offence? I don't take offence at anything that's stated in open forum!

However, after due deliberation, having heard all pleas, and weighing the issues from all aspects as based upon the prima facie evidence adequately presented here, I hereby declare that the guy has no case! Next plaintiff please ...

And who appointed you Judge, Jury and Executioner Geoff?

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." - I forget now where I saw that. But it sounds like a fair one to me!

Just trying to keep it all light-hearted, Scottish, especially as execution is no longer an option these days.

Matthew 7:1

or was it Skippy.....?

After a quick Google search:- Its from Mathew 7 if your interested Geoff.

Anyway, lets get back to the real issue. Some of us did well out of AfC, some of ok and some got dropped upon from a great height (Mr 3 Year Guy et al).

The whole issue of transitional points was unfair. Those that ended up there must have been previously underpaid if their job description matched a higher band during AfC. How were they rewarded for years of underpayment? Put onto transitional points that meant if would be up to three years before they ended up at the bottom of the pay scale they should have been at previously! Thankfully they have now been dropped but there must be a number of unfortunate people that were affected this way.

Has anyone else out there found themselves in the same position and managed to improve their standing by some means (except moving job)?

If so share your experiences with the forum in order that it may help those that have been less lucky.

The only way I can see to improve your grade under AFC is to prove that your Job Description has changed and that your responsibilities have increased up to the level of the next grade.

There is, unfortunately, no method within the afc system for advancing up the scale other than by yearly increments. This is because AFC is half a system, the other half, KSF, that was supposed to "reward" expansion of job roles and responsibility was IMO Bodged Up Beyond Belief. I was unfortunate enough to see the initial draft of the KSF (Imho)a four letter word piece of nonsense with no room at all for anything other than nursing skills. At the last moment it had to be rewritten to fit other types of staff and the "reward" part was totally ignored in favour of bigger sticks to beat the dead horses.

PS it could be worse think of all the people who had worked for 10 years or more to be assimilated at the bottom of a band and get the guy that started the week before on the same point.

I have read with interest all of the above with regard to AfC banding and the "fairness/unfairness" of it. I would like to relate my own experience and the conclusions that I have drawn as a consequence:
The post was advertised pre-AfC and was banded on a reasonable MTO scale (4***). When the job description was submitted for AfC banding it came back at Band 6 and my manager's came back at Band 8a !!! His job description is the same with regard to duties with the addition of managerial responsibilities for two people and organisational skills.
After appeal, my role still came back as Band 6 but had moved up 2 whole points in the weighting!!!!!!
After 12 months, the job was reviewed and a revised job description was submitted for AfC banding. Guess what?? It came back at Band 6. After appeal I was asked to submit a JAQ and surprise, surprise it still came back as Band 6.
I had a meeting with the Head of Service and the Senior HR Manager to discuss this and found out the following:
1. The AfC team will not release information regarding the National Profile used or the actual scores achieved on the Weighting.
2. Under a Freedom of Information Act request, the information is not available for release.
3. The budget for a department dictates the Bands that are available for personnel.
3. It is necessary to score in the top half of a Band for that Band to be awarded. If you score in the bottom half, then a review of the scoring is undertaken to make sure that the final outcome drops them into the lower Band.
4. AfC is biased towards clinical staff.
5. Any clinical or managerial responsibility automatically scores higher irrespective of the other duties.

As a result of the above points I am very cynical of the AfC process and its interpretation by Trusts. To my mind it was construed as a way of keeping the nurses quiet with regard to parity and pay whilst penalising everyone else in Trusts that are hell bent on saving money.

Rant over!!!

Kawasaki,
with exception to points 1 and 2 above, point 3 must mean your departments budget available for personnel must of gone down! If not, you could have slotted into band 7 with no increase to the budget.

points 4 and 5 were obvious from day 1.

AFC was a complete farce.....Oh well on with life

...that's the clincher. But there again, what did you expect Kawa? We are taking healthcare here, after all.